Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2021.06.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 6:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 28, 2021 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Online a.Zoning Code Update - Review of Residential Zoning District Regulations and Rules of Measurement Chapters Memo - Residential District Regulations and Rules of Measurement Chapters Draft - Residential Zoning Districts Chapter Draft - Rules of Measurement Chapter Attachments: 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Interim City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and LariosPresent5 - Tse, and GaulAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - a.Draft May 24, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 24, 2021 Draft Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8b has been continued at the applicant's request. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Jennifer Pfaff: Regarding residential projects that are multi -unit, there was discussion during the General Plan about aligning condominium requirements and rental apartment requirements. It has to do with maybe balconies or open space or public, shared space. I was trying to figure out if that is what we just looked at, was something that is for condo and rental? They're all treated the same. Page 1City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Gardiner: We're treating apartments and condominiums the same. The current code as we have it has separate regulations for condominiums in the subdivision regulations. The thinking is first of all, it's odd to have another set of regulations in a different part of the code, but also the distinction between rental units verses ownership. we couldn't quite find the logic for why they would be significantly different. So going forward, the proposal, at least as shown in the draft zoning code, is they would be treated the same. If commissioners want to discuss that further, we can bring that back for a future agenda.) 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.2013 Easton Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling and attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Bart and Carol Gaul, property owners) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit (THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 14, 2021 MEETING) 2013 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2013 Easton Dr - Attachments 2013 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios4 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.1235 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling (retain existing detached garage). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; Chung Lee, property owner) (179 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1235 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 1235 Paloma Ave - Attachments 1235 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - Page 2City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.1233 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Mickey Ou, property owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1233 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1233 Drake Ave - Attachments 1233 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1548 Balboa Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved for a first and second story to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan, architect; James Fu and Zhi Hui Liu, property owners) (42 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1548 Balboa Way - Staff Report 1548 Balboa Way - Attachments 1548 Balboa Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Andrew, interpreter for property owner James Fu, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Tired of being put on the spot to make this decision as a commission. This is the responsibility of the architect, the owner and the contractor. Not going to support these types of applications. > It's frustrating. We have seen so many of these and we're making efforts in the coming days, hopefully with the revised ordinances with what we put in place for as -built changes. Unfortunately, we have these coming at varying difficult degrees. Ignorance of the process is no excuse. There are those that claim ignorance when it doesn't exist and those will claim they don't understand and try to claim innocence Page 3City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes just because they're unfamiliar. We have professionals, whether contractors or architects, that should understand the process but either don't, fail to, or ignore it and beg forgiveness later. So we're put in a position of having to evaluate these things on a case -by-case basis. On this project in particular, there are some things that are okay. Don't see the need for guardrails when landscaping can prevent people from stepping off the porch. Just want to see this go forward so it is out of our hands and can support it for no other reason. > Would like to point out that if these were building code issues, there would be no question what would happen. If you don't meet the building code, you fix it. Not sure why the planning code is treated differently than the building code. Want to send the message that I'm no longer supporting changes after the fact . The owners, the architects and the contractors need to know the rules and decisions or approvals should be applied exactly the way the building department would apply theirs. >We let one application slide and then the next one wants to slide and it goes on, it's just constant. It just gets frustrating. >The guardrails are fine and the garage door is not. The light wells on the roof in the front look silly . You could leave the ones on the side because they're on the north elevation and you don't see them from the street as much, but you do definitely see them when walking down the street. >Not appreciative that they didn't put some of the details on these as -built and approved plans when they came back to us. I don't know that I can approve this, although I do want to get it out of our hair, I'm very frustrated with this process. >Those light wells are completely out of place right on that center line on the west elevation. I really can't move forward with this. I can't support it, personally. >The light wells are an issue because they create light pollution. They will create hotspots on the roof in the evenings. The guardrails create a look that's unfriendly and just unnecessary from a code standpoint . They create a barrier to a front porch that we are otherwise trying to encourage to be welcoming and create a nice presence on the street. The only things that might be acceptable are the chimney, the front door and the garage door, but all else are denied. >Would be more inclined to deny entirely, but we have given them feedback through the process in coming back to reapply because the drawings need to reflect what is going to be approved at some point . They need to address the items that we are not satisfied with. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - b.1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Amendment to Condominium Permit to add common open space on the roof of the building (condominium project is currently under construction). (Pat Fellowes, applicant; 1509 El Camino LLC, property owner ) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1509 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1509 El Camino Real - Attachments 1509 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Item 8b, 1509 El Camino Real, was continued to a future meeting. c.1095 Rollins Road, zoned R-4 - Application for Design Review Amendment for exterior changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a 6-story, 150-unit apartment building. (Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for this project.) (1095 Rollins Rd. LP, property owner and applicant; BDE Architecture, architect) (18 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 4City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1095 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1095 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1095 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had an opportunity to get a preview from the developer, the architect and the landscape architect on what will be presented, but did not discuss the merit of what will be reviewed for this meeting. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Don Peterson, owner/developer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > The Commission noted that they are very impressed with the thorough and robust response to the questions and challenges presented to the design team. >Don't believe these changes really enhance the building, but is agreeable to the selection of plants. >As a part of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Rollins Road Redevelopment, one of the things that was discussed in the committee was the desire to see green architecture and see features like these . Ready to see this project move forward. > This offers a nice softening of the building, it's a nice green enhancement. Combined with the previous changes that were already reviewed, it's one more nice gesture for both the surrounding neighborhood and the property’s residents. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - d.619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) - Application for Environmental Review and Amendment to Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Condominium Permit for construction of a new five-story, 44-Unit live/work development. (Ian Birchall, Ian Birchall and Associates, applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (216 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 5City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 619-625 California Dr - Staff Report 619-625 California Dr - Attachments 619-625 California Dr - Site Montage 619-625 California Dr - Shadow Study 619-625 California Dr - Addendum 619-625 California Dr - Traffic Impact Analysis 619-625 California Dr - Final IS/MND (previous project) 619-625 California Dr - Draft IS/MND (previous project) 619-625 California Dr - MMRP 619-625 California Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Ian Birchall, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Jennifer Pfaff: I just wanted to briefly say, I think I've seen three or four designs and I definitely think this one is far superior. So thank you for the work. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Consider adding smaller trees in pots along California Drive to provide substantial presence on the street. >The architecture here is vastly improved from what it was before. It's remarkable, the manner in which you've achieved the additional units with approximately one foot of additional height in the building. It's commendable that you have revisited the floor to floor heights to bring the building scale down to something that's appropriate for residential development like this. What's before us tonight is the environmental scoping. Can accept the findings that have been made by the environmental consultant in regards to the original findings and the lack of need for further study. The real question that was the most prominent when this came before us is the potential for traffic. With the traffic analysis under CEQA, there's no doubt that there may be some additional cars, but you have to be scientific in terms how you evaluate traffic and the level of service at the related and associated intersections will not drop below what was previously planned. The project should move forward. >The project looks great. There is some coordination needed on the block with regards to street lighting, the curb and the sidewalk as a whole because I hate to see this be taped together and not be considered one whole block. The idea of understanding delivery zone and pickups for rideshares should also be considered because these projects are in a dense area where we do have traffic. Those things should be coordinated so that it's successful down the stream. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the environmental review for the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios Absent: 2 - Tse, and Gaul Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Larios, to approve the Page 6City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes entitlements for the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.3051 Arguello Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Marc Dimalanta, DScheme Studio, applicant and architect; Matthel Ma, property owner) (102 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 3051 Arguello Dr - Staff Report 3051 Arguello Dr - Attachments 3051 Arguello Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Marc Dimalanta, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Neighbor at 3043 Arguello Drive: You mentioned a good neighbor fence, can you please talk about that and how you're going to protect the hill? What are your plans to the foundation and how that's going to affect the hill down to our property? It looked like, it's all going to be on the flat area. Are you not going down into the canyon at all? What are the silt and sediment controls and water controls while doing construction to prevent that going on to our property? Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >One of the questions was regarding the neighbor to the right and possibly impeding on any use. It was hard to tell where those lines are. So we might want to consider doing story poles on this home just because it might be impacting some views of the neighbor to the right. >There might be potential issues we're not aware of. We have to have story poles on this project when it comes back before us. In regards to the design, there's something that's a little awkward. It has to do with the entry trying to create something that's monumental and squeezing in the space between the garage and the master bedroom on the ground floor. As a flat elevation on the front, I can see the need to try to create some scale to compete with the massing that's been plopped on to that second floor. We've had some projects that were successful in locating the massing towards the rear or towards the center of the house, but not quite sure this one is as successful as others we have seen in the past. The rear elevation actually looks nicely composed with some two -story elements, nice horizontal pieces and then the single story elements. But the front is sort of reaching out and with the massing pushed to the back, it wants to have something. The architect is gravitating toward something at that entry, but it gets out of scale with something more grandiose than it needs to be for a ranch house. It might be a candidate for design review consulting. >The entry is very awkward. The Dutch gable feels like it's jammed in there, doesn't resolve itself at the edges and it doesn't feel right there. Shoving the mass to the back of the property has got more problems, in the manner of many of the projects which have done this before. Some are successful and Page 7City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes generally not as successful. The front elevation seems to make sense when you look at it as though it were flat. It's composed well when flat, but you know it's not flat because the upper floor mass is sitting way at the back. This is a good candidate for design review. There are some opportunities here that have been missed. To design the front porch for packages is a mistake that led to creating a place that's not worth going to. >It's a small entry as it is now because it has a very low slung roof there. This element doesn't necessarily bridge that gap very well. Would encourage bringing the mass forward because then there would be an opportunity for an actual architectural design statement on the front elevation to be cohesive instead of a stepped cake. >Suggest sending this to design review consulting. If it still has that second floor mass, then story poles would need to be erected before it comes back for action. >The architect and the design review consultant may want to revisit the scale of the windows from first floor to second floor. Some are a little large and as you work your way around, they seem a little out of proportion from the second floor down to the first floor. Looking at the rear elevation, the large sectional doors are really tall compared to the adjacent sliding glass door that's at a regular 6’-8” height. Revisit the windows and how it's composed to help with the scale and elevations. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - b.1365 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for height for a new two-story single-family dwelling, detached garage and new accessory dwelling unit. (Kieran Woods, applicant and property owner; Chu Design Associates, James Chu, designer) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1365 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1365 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1365 Vancouver Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Suggest that the second floor balcony stucco posts and metal railings at the front elevation be changed to wood to harmonize with the rest of the house. Vice Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 8City of Burlingame June 28, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios5 - Absent:Tse, and Gaul2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner mentioned that signs have been posted at Parking Lot E providing notification that the parking lot will be closing within 60 days to allow the start of construction of the 220 Park Road project. The first phase will involve moving pieces of the historic structure into the parking lot and into the street. There is a web page with information, including answers to questions people might be asking, as well as links to the project page and town square page. In other business, we anticipate going back to in -person meetings in October. The first in -person Planning Commission meeting will be October 12th. We are looking at a hybrid model for the public, as we've found that there are some benefits to the Zoom format, particularly for the public. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 28, 2021 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on June 28, 2021. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 8, 2021, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 9City of Burlingame